2014 QCCQ 20469, 2014 QCCQ 20469

Protection de la jeunesse — 148501 2014 QCCQ 20469 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028945-145 Date: December 23, 2014 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 1999 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of December 23, 2014, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a fifteen year-old adolescent, based on her serious behavioral disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated October 10, 2014 are as follows: 3.1. the adolescent behaves in such a way as to repeatedly or seriously undermine her physical and psychological integrity; 3.2. the adolescent defies parental authority and disrespects house rules; 3.3. the adolescent disrespects school rules, and has been suspended on at least one (1) occasion for her behaviour; 3.4. the adolescent has left home without permission for several days at a time, without reporting her whereabouts during her absences; 3.5. attempts to manage the adolescent’s behaviour frequently led to physical altercations between her and the parents; 3.6. since around the end of August 2014, at the parents’ request, the CAFE program at the CLSC has been involved with the family in order to address managing the adolescent’s behavioural problems; 3.7. in late September 2014, with the assistance of the CAFE program, a behavioural contract was established, but the adolescent did not agree to abide by the terms of this contract; 3.8. on October 9, 2014, after an unauthorized absence of around one (1) week, instead of returning home, the adolescent went directly to school; 3.9. the school principal contacted the police, the CAFE program, and the parents, but no agreement could be reached between them, so the adolescent’s situation was reported to the Director of Youth Protection;

3.10. the parents initially stated that they wished the adolescent would return home; 3.11. the adolescent stated that she did not wish to return home, but wanted to return to the friends who had housed her during her prolonged absence; 3.12. the parents were fearful for the adolescent’s safety and were overwhelmed with the adolescent’s behaviour, so they requested her placement in a rehabilitation centre; 3.13. on October 9, 2014, immediate protective measures were invoked and the adolescent was escorted by the police to a rehabilitation centre (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The hearing began on November 12, 2014.

All the parties then acknowledged the adolescent’s serious behavioural disturbances. [ 5 ] Although the Director of Youth Protection initially recommended in its written report [2] that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of three months with a gradual reintegration to her parents’ care, the parents insisted that their daughter could safely return to their care within a much shorter time frame.

The court then ordered that her gradual reintegration begin immediately and the case was scheduled to continue on December 23, 2014 to assess the adolescent’s progress and school attendance, as well as to benefit from the conclusions of the adolescent’s appointment with child psychiatrist Dr Greenfeld on November 24, 2014. [ 6 ] In light of the adolescent’s progress, the Director then recommended that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months with a reintegration to her parents’ care as soon as possible with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 7 ] The parents, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and consented to all the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Doherty, also admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-4 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate of the child; D-2: Court report by [Social worker 2], dated November 3, 2014; D-3: Police report bearing event no: […], dated October 6, 2014 (filed under s. 294.1 C.p.c.); D-4: Addendum to court report, written by [Social worker 2], dated December 10, 2014. [ 10 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion, as well as significant improvements in the family’s situation since the adolescent’s placement. [ 11 ] The adolescent’s continued placement is suggested primarily to provide a safety net for the family, with their agreement, as the adolescent is increasingly spending time at home with positive results. [ 12 ] As summarized in the most recent addendum: Following the Court of Queber-Youth Division hearing on November 12 th , 2014, X and her family have been collaborating with the Transition Diversion Program.

Mr. [Social worker 1], the Transition Diversion Social Worker, stated that X has been reintegrating home rapidly and it is going well. Ms. [Social worker 2] reported that X is managing the Transition Diversion Program and school expectations well and her behaviour has remained appropriate and respectful. [3] [ 13 ] As for the adolescent’s health, the psychiatrist recommended that she be assessed for ADD and ODD. [ 14 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well- founded and that the measures are in the adolescent's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent, X STANGLE , are compromised under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of three months with a reintegration to her parents’ care, as soon as possible; [ 18 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent is already spending the majority of her time at home; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the family continue to collaborate with the Transition Diversion Program, with the use of respite if needed;

[ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the family follow up with medical and psychological services, if needed; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent benefit from all medical services she may require, more particularly further to the recommended assessments for ADD and ODD, and recommends that she follow any recommendations that may be made; [ 22 ] AUTHORISES the Director of Youth Protection and the parents to have access to relevant information from treating professionals TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the adolescent’s consent; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent benefit from psychological counselling and should she choose to do so, ORDERS that only information regarding participation and attendance be disclosed to the parents and Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Youth and Family Centres A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Doherty Attorney for the adolescent TD/vl